The Jharkhand High Court set aside the order convicting the accused under Sections 363 and 376 and held that it was unsafe to act on the testimony of the prosecutrix without corroboration and it could be inferred that the prosecutrix agreed voluntarily to allow the appellant for sexual intercourse and the offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC were not made out as the victim was a major and her relationship with the accused was consensual in nature.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, accused of raping the victim by giving allurement to marriage filed the [resent application against the judgement passed by the trial court wherein he was convicted under Sections 363 and 376 of the IPC.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the judgment passed by the trial court was contrary to the facts and circumstances and the trial court ought to have given the benefit of doubt to the appellant and should have acquitted him. It was further argued that the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon as she changed her statement and she cannot be believed and the entire prosecution case thus was falsely filed by the victim girl at the instances of her father and uncle and she was, in reality in a love affair with the appellant.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the prayer for acquittal and contended that the trial court had not committed any error in convicting the appellant.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that the prosecution has failed to bring any evidence on record to prove the fact that the victim was taken by the appellant forcefully at gunpoint as the victim never tried to escape even though she had the opportunity and further the gun was not recovered. Further, it was observed that the statements of the victim were falsified by the examination of other witnesses. The court stated that the testimonies of the other witnesses showed that the appellant had not induced and kidnapped the victim girl forcibly; rather the victim girl went with him on her own. It was further stated that the victim had various chances of escape but she did not even for once try to rescue herself or raise an alarm as such, her evidence can be seen as a hollow one.
The court further stated that the explanation given by her in which she has not told the truth about marriage as well as for not resisting the accused at the time of the sexual intercourse is that the appellant had given her threats but the nature of threats was not stated and the explanation was a hollow one and seemed as an afterthought when the motive of marriage was not fulfilled.
The court concluded that it was unsafe to act on the testimony of the prosecutrix without corroboration and it could be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case that the prosecutrix agreed voluntarily to allow the appellant for sexual intercourse and that too for 10-15 days and her silence about non-reporting in this regard has to be taken to be either because of fear of reprisal or because of the need felt to protect her image.
The court stated that the offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC were not made out as the victim was a major and her relationship with the accused was consensual in nature.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the application and set aside the conviction of the appellant for the substantive offence of kidnapping and rape by the trial Court.
Case Title: Manik Mahato vs. State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan
Case No.: Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1752 of 2004
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. R.C.P. Sah
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Jitendra Pandey
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://aldianews.com/sites/default/files/articles/5533216942_e4e47cd182_o_%281%29.jpg
